Stange, like most (if not all) women’s studies professors, is both logically and theologically off the reservation. Here is her line of reasoning:

(1) Paul was generally inspired of God, but–because he was a product of a patriarchal culture that was unaware of modern understandings–specific elements of his writings were not a matter of Divine inspiration. Among those elements are his pronouncements regarding homosexuality.

(2) Luther, like Paul, was also a product of a very prejudicial culture. Therefore, certain specificities of his theological profile–that were a product of that culture and not subject to more modern understandings–are not binding.

(3) Given that Luther was a revolutionary who challenged the cultural paradigms of his time, he would likely have supported gay relationships had he been the recipient of more modern advancements in understanding of homosexuality.

A benign term for her reasoning would be extrapolation. A more blunt assessment would be rectal extraction. I’ll just call it fantasy history.

Fact is, Luther–like Paul–challenged traditions–dogmas–that had no foundation in Scripture. His theological profile strove to stick to the word of Scripture, and he made great effort to keep traditional influence to a minimum.

Paul was very similar in that respect: he was effective at challenging traditions, while sticking to Scripture itself.

Perhaps Paul’s–and Luther’s–approaches to Scripture were similar because their model for understanding–Jesus–took a similar approach. Jesus was quite the conservative in his interpretation of Scripture, even if his conclusions (adultery, divorce, disposition of wealth) leave conservatives in fits.

Mohler was correct: neither Luther nor Paul–nor even Jesus–questioned the morality of a commandment of Scripture–sexual or otherwise. And modern understanding of the dynamics of homosexuality hardly negates the immorality of sexual activity outside the scope of heterosexual marriage.

If we could prove, for example, that pedophilia was the product of a genetic predisposition, that would contribute to our understanding to the dynamics of pedophilia. However, the pedophile’s actions would still be morally reprehensible.

The same would be true with respect to bestiality, incest, rape, and murder.

Sadly, the academic world–especially in soft departments (history, psychology, women’s studies, sociology)–has devolved into fantasy analysis. One can find the proof just by reading Stange’s column.

This is one more reason why the academy is slouching toward irrelevance.

07/26/2007: This should betray my ripe old age somewhat…I remember Keith Green and his contribution to Christian ministry.

I have long railed against the business of Christianity, suggesting that many singers, musicians, authors, and even preachers have corrupted the Gospel by marrying it with capitalism. (In spite of my free market libertarian political views, I’ve long maintained that the Church is an organism, not an organization; ergo, the Gospel ought not be a vehicle for monetary profit.)

Well, Keith Green was railing against the Christian music industry long before it blossomed into the secular enterprise–with a veneer of ministry–that it has become today.

07/26/2007: Whether it’s deranged women attacking romantic rivals (Nowak), Shuttle pilots shacking up with Air Force officers (Oefelein), drunk astronauts allowed to fly, or even saboteurs, NASA is up to its ears in crap.

I realize that the astronaut corps is hardly a monastery–even the original Mercury astronaut team had some philanderers among them–but given that much of this conduct would normally get them court-marshaled (as most of the astronauts are military officers on loan from their respective services), you’d think there would be better discipline among their ranks.

And considering that NASA is very selective about whom they hire, it would seem that a review of their selection process–not just for astronauts, but also other personnel–is in order.

A very important operative principle in the tax code is that, in an exchange that involves return of capital (something you originally contributed) and capital gain (profit earned on that capital), that–while capital gains are taxable–return of capital is not taxable.

In other words, if I invest $10, and receive $15, then I am taxed on the $5 gain while the $10–my original investment–is not taxable.

That same reasoning extends to the taxation of annuities (exclusion ratios are used to differentiate between capital and interest, the latter being taxable) and the taxation of inheritance distributions that are spread out over more than 3 years (distributions under three years are generally excluded from income).

Cryer argues that, in terms of income from labor wages, that constitutes return of capital–compensation for services–and therefore is not taxable.

At any rate, a jury of 12 heard his argument, and heard the IRS argument. And that jury acquitted Cryer.

It will be interesting to see if that case ends up serving as a general precedent, but we shall see.

07/25/2007: I always enjoy reading Mike S. Adams, a criminology professor at UNC-Wilmington. He is a right-leaning Christian academic with a libertarian streak, who often exposes politically-correct dogmatics at our fine colleges and universities.

07/25/2007: Liberals love to remind you how superior they are in thought in culture. Never mind that they shut out their more right-leaning opponents who are more factually correct.

But if you refute the liberals in a free market, they’ll attack you with their most important ally: Big Brother.

As a result of the successes of right-leaning talk radio hosts–Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham–and the failures of leftists in that same arena (Air America, Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, etc), a number of neocommies in the DNC are trying to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Now I’m not going to suggest that Wonkette is anti-semitic–I don’t know those bloggers and cannot vouch for or against them. I would, however, suggest that associating the Jew with a crappy newspaper like the NYT is insulting to Jews. Now if Wonkette had associated Jews with a really good newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal (my paper of choice), then a that might have been a compliment!

I could list more examples, such as their systematic lockout of conservatives in academia and their harassment of corporate America through shakedowns (Jesse Jackson), but that further serves to illustrate the point: for all their talk of academic freedom and free inquiry, the left pursue to stifle debate and ensure that forums only promote their viewpoints.

Legal harassment is but one tool in their arsenal toward that end.
But that’s okay…we bloggers on the right will keep kicking your asses.

“Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period.” –R. Palmeiro

Then again, she may be right. Truman was a liberal. Eisenhower was a liberal. Ford and Nixon were liberals.

Hillary is a Stalinist.

In all seriousness, modern liberals represent the only group of people in America who do not like to be called what they are. I have yet to meet a conservative or libertarian that isn’t proud to be called such. But liberals, they are peculiar.

07/23/2007: Any time a liberal tells me that he or she has an answer for AIDS, global hunger, the environment, economic troubles, health care, or the like, I almost never take their proposals seriously.

The left latched onto Margaret Sanger and her agenda of eugenics and population control. Today, Western civilization is dying due to a low birth rate. Her birth control agenda was the forerunner of the modern abortion rights movement, which has slaughtered hundreds of millions of children worldwide.

The left latched onto Rachel Carson’s rants about birdless springs, and spearheaded the worldwide ban of DDT, the use of which had all but wiped out malaria in Africa. After the ban, malaria came back with a vengeance, resulting in at least 50 million deaths.

The left latched onto Alfred Kinsey’s agenda of perversion, spearheading the “sexual revolution”. This promotion of licentious behavior resulted in millions of children suffering sexual abuse, sexual predators getting light treatment in the legal system, and many adults who–following their hormones–went on to experience the glories of STDs, unwed motherhood, and the aftermath of abortion.

Now, we are seeing the results of yet another liberal initiative: the fight against breastfeeding. The left latched onto the notion that, by providing formula in lieu of breastfeeding, babies would be saved from HIV/AIDS.

Sadly, as formula usage increased and breastfeeding declined, more babies ended up suffering fatal infections from which they received relative immunity via breastfeeding.